Black v. Massey et al

1 	- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOHNATHAN R. BLACK, 	Case No. 6:25-cv-01770-AP
Plaintiff, 	FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
v.
CAPRICE MASSEY, Sheriff; PATRICK
GARRETT (Former) Sheriff; SETH HONL,
Washington County Deputy/Forest Grove,
Defendants.
______________________________________
POTTER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a self-represented adult in custody (AIC), files this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and alleges claims arising from his confinement at the Washington County Jail between
May 2022 and October 2023. But Plaintiff previously brought a federal § 1983 action against
similar defendants arising from the same set of facts and this bars his present lawsuit. Because
Plaintiff’s claims in this action are duplicative and barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, no
Case 6:25-cv-01770-AP Document 8 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 8

2 	- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
amendment to his complaint would save this defect. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the
district court enter judgment dismissing this case with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this suit against current and former officials of the Washington County
Sheriff’s Office; the defendants are Caprice Massey, the current Washington County Sheriff;
Patrick Garrett, a former Washington County Sheriff, and Seth Honl, a former Washington
County Deputy. Plaintiff alleges that, after he was convicted of several criminal charges and
sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed his convictions and
remanded the case for a new trial. Compl. at 6 (ECF No. 1). Upon remand, Plaintiff claims that
he was transported from state custody to the Washington County Jail on May 20, 2022, and that
he was unlawfully confined without a hearing until October 17, 2023. Id. During that time,
Plaintiff contends that Defendants “knew, or should have known, that plaintiff had not been
brought before a judge, and that prompt and reasonable action should be taken.” Id. at 6.
Plaintiff raises three claims for relief. Plaintiff alleges federal due process and speedy
trial violations based on Defendants’ failure “to investigate or alert the court” that Plaintiff did
not have a hearing or trial scheduled for 515 days. Id. at 8. Plaintiff also asserts state law claims
of false imprisonment and negligence arising from Defendants’ failure “to bring plaintiff before
a judge” and “to alert Washington County Court that Plaintiff had been detained without a
hearing for over 500 days.” Id. at 9.
In April of 2024, Plaintiff filed a similar § 1983 action in this Court. See Black v. Bailey,
Case No. 3:24-cv-668-MO (D, Or.). Plaintiff initially filed his complaint pro se against six
defendants; included were the defendants in this action—Massey, Garrett, and Honl—along with
the District Attorney, the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted him, and the court clerk.
Case 6:25-cv-01770-AP Document 8 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 8

3 	- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 3:24-cv-668-MO (ECF No. 1). The claims for relief in Bailey mirrored the ones in his
present complaint; he raised claims of false imprisonment and violations of his constitutional
rights to a speedy trial based on his allegedly false imprisonment at the Washington County Jail
between May 2022 and October 2023. Id.
After granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court appointed pro bono
counsel for the limited purpose of assisting Plaintiff with filing an amended complaint. Id. (ECF
Nos. 5, 6). That amended complaint included false imprisonment and arrest, retaliation, and
negligence claims but against different defendants employed in the Washington County Sheriff’s
Office. Id. Instead of the current and former sheriff, the complaint named five different deputies
with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. Id. (ECF No. 15). The facts underlying Plaintiff’s
claims were the same; he alleged he was unlawfully confined at the Washington County Jail
between May 2022 and October 2023.1 Plaintiff alleged that the deputies “had a duty of care to
escalate Mr. Black’s complaints and alert Washington County Court staff that Mr. Black was not
scheduled for a hearing” and were negligent for failing to do so. Id. (ECF No. 15 at 28). Plaintiff
also alleged a claim of false imprisonment based on Washington County’s alleged inaction after
Plaintiff complained “that he was being held in jail without conviction and without trial.” Id.
(ECF No. 15 at 30-31).
After Washington County (and other defendants) filed a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff,
again proceeding pro se, requested leave to amend his complaint and add Defendants Massey
and Honl back into the case. Id. (ECF No. 29). The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion as an
1 Plaintiff also raised § 1983 claims against several State officials, including the presiding
judge, two prosecutors, and a court administrator who allegedly failed to enter Plaintiff’s
appellate judgment into the record. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for damages against
the State officials with prejudice and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief without
prejudice. Bailey, Case No. 3:24-cv-668-MO (ECF No. 31 at 12). Plaintiff does not seek
injunctive relief in this action.
Case 6:25-cv-01770-AP Document 8 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 8

4 	- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
untimely response to the Motions to Dismiss. Id. (ECF No. 30). That same day, the Court also
granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the Washington County Defendants were entitled
to quasi-judicial immunity:
The Ninth Circuit has held that “prison officials charged with executing
facially valid court orders enjoy absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for
conduct prescribed by those orders.” Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2013)…. In this respect, courts afford quasi-judicial immunity to
jailers who execute facially valid court orders.
In this case, there is no allegation that the Washington County Defendants
were confronted with a facially invalid order to detain Plaintiff. Likewise, there is
no allegation that they simply ignored a court order to transport Plaintiff for a trial
or other judicial proceeding. Instead, the Washington County Defendants adhered
to the Washington County Circuit Court’s orders to detain Plaintiff and, in doing
so, are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.
Id. (ECF No. 31 at 11-12). Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of negligence and
false imprisonment with prejudice. Id.
Several months later, Plaintiff filed the present action.
DISCUSSION
This Court must screen a complaint filed by an AIC seeking redress from a governmental
entity or official to determine if the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Dismissal of a self-represented
litigant’s complaint for failure to state a claim “is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot
prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him to relief.” Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court must construe pleadings filed by self-represented
litigants liberally and afford the plaintiff “the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can
cure” defects in the complaint, a self-represented litigant “is entitled to notice of the complaint’s
Case 6:25-cv-01770-AP Document 8 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 8

5 	- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of
Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
Here, Plaintiff’s claims are duplicative of those alleged in his prior, dismissed case
(Bailey). This is not permitted; the doctrine of claim preclusion or res judicata prevents litigants
from relitigating claims that are the same or similar to the claims in a prior lawsuit. See Song v.
Cent. Intel. Agency, 2024 WL 2251865, at *1 (D. Or. May 10, 2024), report and
recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 2251628 (D. Or. May 17, 2024). And a district court may
dismiss an IFP complaint if it is duplicative and barred by res judicata. Id. (citing cases).
“The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common
law.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 (2008). Under the doctrine known as claim
preclusion, a final judgment on the merits precludes successive litigation of all claims that were
actually asserted or all claims that could have been asserted in the previous action. Id. at 892;
Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). The application of claim preclusion
requires “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between
parties.” Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2017). All three elements
are met here.
First, an identity of claims exists. “The central criterion in determining whether there is
an identity of claims between the first and second adjudications is ‘whether the two suits arise
out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.’” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244
F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “Newly articulated claims” arising from the
same nucleus of facts are precluded if they could have been brought in the earlier action. Tahoe-
Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003).
Case 6:25-cv-01770-AP Document 8 Filed 11/14/25 Page 5 of 8

6 	- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff’s claims in this action arise from the same “transactional nucleus” of facts as
those alleged in Bailey: Plaintiff’s confinement in the Washington County Jail from May 2022 to
October 2023 and Defendants’ alleged failure to bring him before the court during that time. See
Bailey, Case No. 3:24-cv-668-MO (ECF No. 31 at 11) (“Claims IV and V fault Washington
County and individuals employed within the Washington County Jail for not helping Plaintiff to
move his case forward and for continuing to imprison him while his criminal case sat stagnant”).
Plaintiff’s claims of negligence and false imprisonment in this action are identical to those raised
in Bailey, and his constitutional claims likewise arise from the same common nucleus of facts.
And they could have been brought in the original action. In fact, they were brought initially in
the original action; the same claims against these Defendants were included in the original
complaint in Bailey. When Plaintiff amended the complaint, he omitted these Defendants. It
appears he regrets that choice, but that does not give him a second bite at the apple in a new
lawsuit.
Second, the Court in Bailey found that the Washington County Defendants were entitled
to quasi-judicial immunity and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Bailey, Case No.
3:24-cv-668-MO (ECF No. 31 at 12) (“Plaintiff’s Claim I is dismissed without prejudice as
to his request for injunctive and declaratory relief pertaining to [State] Defendants Pulver and
Barton. The remainder of Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.”). The Court’s Order
and accompanying Judgment serve as a final judgment on the merits and meet the second
element of claim preclusion. Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (“The phrase ‘final judgment on the
merits’ is often used interchangeably with ‘dismissal with prejudice.’”); see also id. at 957
(stating that “dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is a ‘judgment on the
merits’ to which res judicata applies”).
Case 6:25-cv-01770-AP Document 8 Filed 11/14/25 Page 6 of 8

7 	- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Third and finally, Defendants in this action are in privity with the Washington County
Defendants in Bailey. As officials of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, a “substantial
identity” exists between them and their interests are “so closely aligned as to be virtually
representative.” Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, 322 F.3d at 1082 (citation omitted); see also
Thomason v. Kitzhaber, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1115-16 (D. Or. 2002) (“That plaintiff has named
state officials who were not parties to the earlier action as additional defendants in this case does
not change the preclusive effect of the prior judgment, because his claims in both actions are, in
reality, claims against the state of Oregon.”).
Before dismissing a complaint sua sponte based on claim preclusion, the Court must
allow Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard. See Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d
1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff is afforded that opportunity through his ability to file
objections to this Findings and Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s claims are duplicative and barred by claim
preclusion and this action should be DISMISSED with prejudice.
SCHEDULING ORDER
The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any,
are due fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. If no objections
are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.
A party’s failure to timely file objections to any of these findings will be considered a
waiver of that party’s right to de novo consideration of the factual issues addressed herein and
will constitute a waiver of the party’s right to review of the findings of fact in any order or
judgment entered by a district judge. These Findings and Recommendation are not immediately
Case 6:25-cv-01770-AP Document 8 Filed 11/14/25 Page 7 of 8

8 	- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ____ day of November, 2025.
AMY E. POTTER
United States Magistrate Judge
14th
/s/Amy E. Potter
Case 6:25-cv-01770-AP Document 8 Filed 11/14/25 Page 8 of 8